JAYSHIVSINHJI RUDRATSINHJI Vs. NARESHBHAI HATHISING SHAH
LAWS(GJH)-2014-2-56
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on February 28,2014

Jayshivsinhji Rudratsinhji Appellant
VERSUS
Nareshbhai Hathising Shah Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE present application has been preferred by the applicant, who is the original respondent No.5 to recall the order dated 17.4.2008 passed in First Appeal No.1996 of 2012, whereby the appeal came to be admitted and it is also prayed that the interim order passed in Civil Application No.4816 of 2008 dated 17.4.2008 with its confirmation vide order dated 6.10.2010 may also be recalled and the First Appeal as well as Civil Application be dismissed.
(2.) MR .I. H. Syed, learned Counsel for the application, during the course of the hearing, prayed that since First Appeal was preferred by the original appellants, who were not party to the proceedings before the lower Court in the suit, application for leave to preferred appeal being Civil Application No.4764 of 2008 was preferred and this Court vide order dated 17.4.2008 had granted leave and, therefore, the prayer be permitted to be amended in the present application for recalling of the order dated 17.4.2008 passed by this Court in Civil Application No.4764 of 2008, since after the leave was granted, the Court entertained the First Appeal. Hence, permission to amend prayer clause accordingly is granted. We have heard Mr.Syed, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned Sr. Counsel appearing with Ms.Vidhi Bhatt for the main contesting party ­ original appellant, and Ms.Trusha Patel, Ms.Brahmbhatt and Ms.Srushti Thula, learned Counsel for the respective respondents. It may be stated that the learned Counsel for the respondents, upon advance copy served of the present application, have appeared for their respective clients.
(3.) IT may also be recorded that Mr.K.G. Vakharia, learned Sr. Counsel appearing with Mr.Parikh wanted to intervene in the hearing of the present application, contending that his clients have purchased the property pending injunction granted by this Court, but they are not impleaded up till now as party in the proceedings of First Appeal No.1996 of 2008 and his application for being impleaded as party is pending in the proceedings of First Appeal and it was submitted that their clients have preferred similar application for recalling of the order and the hearing of the present application be made simultaneously with the said application.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.